paper 10zk

International Journal of Business Management

Available at www.ijbm.co.in

ISSN No.:2349-3402

Vol. 1(2), 2014

75

Underpricing of initial public offerings: a study based on mega issues listed on

national stock exchange

Mr. Sajal Das1

The decade previous to the one we are presently in have witnessed several mega issues flooding

the Indian primary market. Companies now raise resources in tens and hundreds of billions from

the primary segment of our capital market through IPOs. This research paper examines the

listing performance of mega IPOs issued and traded on NSE during the previous decade 2001 to

2010. Keeping this in mind the paper attempts to study a sample of twenty mega issues selecting

nine from boom period and eleven from recession period during the previous decade under study

and present a comparative analysis of the listing performance based on three parameters namely

raw return on listing, simple underpricing and adjusted underpricing. A t-test is carried out

between these two independent samples on these three parameters to assess whether listing

performance significantly varies between boom or recession period. Results derived from sample

companies could not establish any significant difference in listing performance between boom

period minor IPOs and recession period mega IPOs. Moreover severity in underpricing of mega

IPOs is also not observed for the decade under study. Underpricing is found to be moderate and

the extent of abnormality in adjusted returns is not so prominent also.

Assistant Professor in Finance, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Deemed

University, Mumbai.

Introduction

The Indian Securities market is one of the leading stock markets of the world. The Primary

segment of the Indian securities market which is also referred to as the New Issue market (NIM)

or the Initial Public Offering (IPO) market is the cynosure of all retail investors since the

abolition of Capital Issues (Control) Act, 1947 on May, 1992. IPOs are now being freely priced

and it is altogether left to the judgment of the issuing companies to price their new securities.

Primary market acts as a gateway for Companies to raise resources for their financial needs.

Resource mobilisation through Primary market is not a recent phenomenon and both listed as

well as unlisted companies use this route to generate funds for themselves. The following table

highlights the importance of IPO for the Indian economy. As we can clearly see from the table

below that during the decade under study how Indian Companies have procured resources for

their needs through IPO route.

Table 1: Resources Mobilised from the Primary Market by way of IPOs

Year 2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

2008-

09

2009-

10

No. of

Issues 114 7 6 21 23 79 77 85 21 39



ISSN No.:2349-3402

Vol. 1(2), 2014

76

Amt.

(Rs.Cr) 2,722 1,202 1,039 3,434 13,749 10,936 28,504 42,595 2,082 24,696

Source: Handbook of Statistics on the Indian Securities Market, SEBI, 2010

Literature Review:

Shah (1995) conducted one of the early works on Indian IPOs where he identified the empirical

regularities about Indias IPO market for the period January 1991 to April 1995. He worked with a sample size of 2056 and found that on the average the price at first listing was 105.6% above

the offer price. Madhusoodanan and Thiripalraju (1997) did extensive analysis on Indian IPOs

during 1992-1995. They reported an average initial underpricing of 75.21%. They tested a

number of hypotheses using data of 1922 IPOs. Madan (2003) studied the under pricing of IPOs

and found a very high initial excess return on IPOs in the Indian primary capital market as

compared to other countries. The study included 1,597 companies during 1989-1995 listed at the

BSE. Ghosh (2004) attempted to depict a detailed investigation in respect of the boom and slump

phases in the Indian primary capital market. His study concentrated on two key variables, namely

IPO volume and initial returns and analyses their nature and interrelation during these two

periods.

Several studies had been conducted in the Indian IPO market to assess the short term and long

term performance of IPOs. In this research work the intention is to study the minor IPOs issued

during the last decade and their listing performance with respect to their issue price.

Objective of the Study:

The primary objective of this research work is to assess the first day listing performance of

selected minor IPOs issued during the study period between 2000 to 2009 comprising ten years

and then to present a comparative analysis of those IPOs which are issued during the boom

period vis--vis recession period of the IPO market. To achieve this purpose, the following

objectives are set forth:

1. To compute the first day initial returns defined as raw return on listing (RL); 2. To examine the extent of Simple Underpricing (UPS) on listing day itself; 3. To test whether first day adjusted listing returns (UPA) significantly differ for mega issue

IPOs during boom and recession season of New Issue market (NIM). Research Methodology adopted:

The raw data used for the entire study during the study period starting from 01.01.2000 to

31.12.2009 accounting for ten calendar years is mainly the stock prices of the companies

which have gone public through IPO during this time period. The entire stock prices and

stock indices are based on data from the data base of National Stock Exchange (NSE) of

India Limited website. For the specific purpose of our study we need to categorise issue year

as Boom (B) season or Recession (R) season of IPO Market based on the number of issues

during that year in comparison to the average number of issues for the entire study period.

Mega issue IPOs are those IPOs whose issue sizes are Rs.100 Crores and above. So those issues

which are below this cut-off size of Rs. 100 Crores are not considered for the purpose of this

study as they are not categorised as Mega IPOs. Thereafter we have adopted purposive sampling

technique to select our twenty (20) sample companies for the study. Purposive sampling being a

non-probability sampling is done to solve the research problem with a specific purpose in mind



ISSN No.:2349-3402

Vol. 1(2), 2014

77

so as to include only those samples which will fulfill the purpose of the study. The entire list of

sample companies selected and their issue details specifying the offer period, issue size, offer

price, issue price and date of listing is given under appendix 1.

(a) Models adopted for analysis: Let us discuss the models used to compute various returns to assess underpricing on the day of listing. For the purpose of measuring the extent of

underpricing we have used the following model:

For Initial Return on Listing Day (Day 1): We compute three different types of initial return on

the day of listing as stated below: Raw Return on Listing= ln (Listing Price/Issue Price) *

100

This is intended to measure the listing gain to the allotees who are being successfully allotted their shares at final price referred to as issue price. Infact listing price is the very first price that is flashed on the ticker of the stock exchange on the listing date of

IPO.

Simple Underpricing i.e. Unadjusted Return = ln(Closing stock price on listing day/Issue

Price) * 100. This expression measures the return to the IPO allotees who are holding their allotment till the end of the first day trading session and Adjusted Underpricing

(Initial Returns) on Listing = ln(closing stock price on day of listing/Issue Price) *100 ln(Closing Index on listing day/Closing Index on Offer Closing day) * 100

This measures the abnormal return arising to the investors after adjustment with the return

arising from the relevant stock index on that day. Any excess return over and above the normal

benchmark return arising from the relevant stock index is referred as abnormal return from IPO.

(b) Framing of Hypothesis: To perform this research work several hypothesis needed to be framed and statistical test shall be conducted to give direction to the stated objectives.

Accordingly we have framed the following set of Null Hypothesis which is stated below:

H10: There is no significant difference in mean raw listing return between Boom period

and Recession period of Minor issue IPOs

H20: There is no significant difference in mean simple underpricing between Boom

period and Recession period of Minor issue IPOs

H30: There is no significant difference in mean adjusted underpricing between Boom

period and Recession period of Minor issue IPOs

(c) Statistical tests used for analysis: Various returns computed from the series of stock prices belong to interval scale which refers to such a scale where the interval between successive

positions is equal. Being interval scale of data, we would like to perform parametric test to

derive results. For this the very first thing that needs to be done is to test the normality of

data. There are several ways to tell whether a variable deviates significantly from normal.

We will perform the Kolmorogov-Smirnov (K-S) test using SPSS statistical software

package in support of our justification for adopting traditional transformation and

accordingly substantiate using the statistical parametric test for our research study.

Thereafter F-test, more specifically Levenes F-test will be carried out to establish if the two samples have same variance. Depending on the result of F-test, a t-test is carried out for

independent samples to establish differences of mean. We want to carry out Levenes F-test as it is not dependent on the assumption of normality, even though we will be testing the

normality of variables. All statistical tests are to be performed using SPSS statistical

software package version 18.0.



ISSN No.:2349-3402

Vol. 1(2), 2014

78

Computation of Returns on Listing Day: In this Section we now reproduce the entire

computation of RL, UPS and UPA of all the twenty sample companies segmented over boom

and recession period in tabular form to provide an overall glimpse of the listing day performance

as computed by us according to the methodology already stated.

In the next tables 2 and 3 we take up the computed results of mega issue IPOs during the boom

period and recession period and then present a brief analysis of the computed results to

understand the extent of underpricing and abnormality in returns for the mega issue companies.

Table 2: Computed Result of Listing Day Performance of Mega IPOs issued during Boom Period

Company

Raw Return on

Listing

(RL)

Simple Underpricing

(UPS)

Adjusted

Underpricing

(UPA)

DLF 0.30 8.19 3.87

CAIRN INDIA (5.13) (15.23) (41.02)

POWERGRID 54.63 65.99 52.45

IDEA 12.52 13.34 24.24

JETAIRWAYS 4.88 17.03 12.69

SUZLON 22.55 30.64 38.56

HDIL 7.44 11.22 5.35

IDFC 56.80 71.50 67.35

LANCO INFRA 11.78 0.58 (2.86)

Source: Self computation (Figures in parentheses indicate negative value.)

The results computed in the above table indicate that except Power Grid and IDFC none of the

issuing companies could gave a stellar performance on listing. To our surprise, Cairn India IPO

even listed with a negative return thereby suggesting an overpricing of issued price. The adjusted

underpricing of Cairn India is as low as -41.02 percent indicating that it performed so badly even

in comparison to the benchmark index return. Out of the entire lot of mega issue IPOs Cairn

India is the worst performer. Out of nine mega issue IPOs, two companies Power Grid and IDFC

listed with a raw return on listing of above 50 percent, just one company Suzlon Energy listed

with a raw return of above 20 percent, another two companies Idea Cellular and Lanco Infratech

listed with a raw return of slightly above 10 percent and three companies DLF, Jet Airways and

HDIL listed with a raw return of a single digit figure. So from these figures we can clearly say

that listing performance of mega issue IPOs are not highly lucrative. In terms of abnormality of

return also, as measured by UPA, seven IPOs were able to generate some abnormal returns in

comparison to the benchmark index Nifty 50. Cairn India and Lanco Infratech were the only two

companies which have failed to generate any abnormal return for its investors on the very first

day of trading. So the overall picture of the listing performance of mega issue IPOs are not

highly satisfactory in terms of the three parameters viz. RL, UPS and UPA. One important thing

to observe is that none of the companies could generate return close to 100 percent or more as it

was reported during the previous decade by various researches. So we can state that for the mega

issue IPOs during the boom period, the extent of underpricing is not as severe as it was observed

in the earlier studies conducted by Indian researches in the previous decade.

We now present in the next table similar computed results for the Mega IPOs issued during the

recession period and then discusses briefly their listing performance.



ISSN No.:2349-3402

Vol. 1(2), 2014

79

Table 3: Computed Result of Listing Day Performance of Mega IPOs issued during Recession

season

Company

Raw Return on

Listing

(RL)

Simple Underpricing

(UPS)

Adjusted

Underpricing (UPA)

RPOWER 16.36 (18.95) (2.86)

NHPC 15.42 2.06 (1.63)

NTPC 35.02 19.77 16.61

TCS 34.38 15.04 18.69

DIVISLAB 10.18 23.03 29.26

ADANI POWER 7.70 0.10 4.13

OIL INDIA 4.29 8.33 2.99

JSWENERGY 5.83 0.85 (1.48)

RECLTD 21.28 14.43 19.21

IBPOW 0.11 (13.04) (4.94)

MARUTI 27.70 27.34 22.99

Source: Self computation (Figures in parentheses indicate negative value.)

Eleven IPOs of mega issue sizes during recession period was considered for our study. Strangely

eleven out of eleven IPOs gave positive raw return on listing for the recession period whereas in

the immediately preceding table of the boom period mega issue IPOs cent percent positive return

was not reported. Nine companies are underpriced in terms of UPS and seven issuing companies

gave abnormal return over and above the benchmark Nifty 50 index. In terms of RL, the highest

return was observed for NTPC followed by TCS of approximately 35 percent and 34 percent

respectively. None of the issuing company could give a raw return on listing beyond this 35

percent. So even in case of recession period we observed that returns are not so dramatic. The

highest abnormality in IPO return is observed for Divis Laboratories followed by Maruti Udyog

in the second position and Rural Electrification in the third position measuring approximately 29

percent, 23 percent and 19 percent respectively. The worst performers are Reliance Power and

India Bulls Power both generating a negatively underpriced return of approximately 19 percent

and 13 percent respectively thereby indicating that the issue price of these two companies are

highly overpriced in comparison to the listed market price of day 1 of the trading session. We

now draw similar conclusion that none of the issuing companies have generated a return

touching 100 percent or above both in terms of raw return on listing or in terms of abnormality of

return. So in overall terms, the IPOs issued during recession period of mega issue sizes are not

severely underpriced and does not fetch substantial abnormal return for its investors over and

above the benchmark Nifty 5o index return.

So as a whole the twenty samples chosen for the purpose of our study under the mega issue

category comprising both the boom period as well as recession period we can conclude based on

the above tabulated computations that only two companies Power Grid and IDFC were able to

generate substantial abnormal return for its investors ranging beyond 50 percent and six issuers

failed to generate any abnormality at all for its investors on the first day of listing rather giving a

negative return to them and none generated 100 percent return be in terms of RL or in terms of

UPS and UPA.

Overview of Listing Day performance



ISSN No.:2349-3402

Vol. 1(2), 2014

80

In this section we present an overall analysis of the listing day performance of the twenty sample

companies based on the previously computed RL, UPS and UPA values specified in the

preceding section. It is a known fact that IPOs are severly underpriced which has been already

documented both internationally as well as in our Indian context. The following tables 4and 5

present the listing performance of the sample companies.

Table 4: Analysis of Listing Performance based on Raw Return on Listing (RL)

ISSUE

TYPE SEASON

NOS. OF COMPANIES WHOSE RAW RETURN ON LISTING

(RL) VALUE IS

0%

>0% to

25%

>25% to

50%

>50% to

75%

>75% to

100%

>100%

MEGA

(20)

BOOM

(9) 1 6 0 2 0 0

RECESSION

(11) 0 8 3 0 0 0

TOTAL (20) 1 14 3 2 0 0

Source: Self Computation

The observation of the computed summarised results of the sample companies performance on the day of listing in terms of raw listing return (RL) depicts that only one mega issue from boom

period from a sample of twenty companies were overpriced with respect to the issue price

generating a negative RL value.

Not a single issuing company in our sample of twenty could generate a RL beyond 75 percent so

the extent of underpricing mega issues were not so severe in terms of RL computations. And

obviously not a single company thus reported return in excess of 100 percent.

Out of 20 mega issues 17 companies comprising 85 percent of the sample generated positive RL

not exceeding fifty percent and for minor issues the corresponding figure is 15 companies i.e. 75

percent. In a sample of 20 mega issues just only 2 companies managed to exceed the 50 percent

mark. We observe that it was during the boom period that these 2 companies performed

comparatively well to generate a return within >50 % to 75% range. If we interpret from the

issuing season point of view then we can say that 25 percent of the sample of the mega period

could generate return in the range of >50 percent to 75 percent. So overall in terms of RL listing

return sample companies didnt generated whopping return at the very moment of listing on the stock exchange. In other words , successful allotees didnt earned phenomenal return with the immediate hammering of the bell.

Table 5: Listing Performance depicting the extent of Underpricing

ISSUE

TYPE SEASON

NOS. OF COMPANIES WHOSE SIMPLE AND ADJUSTED

UNDERPRICING (UPS AND UPA) VALUE IS

0%

>0% to

25%

>25% to

50%

>50% to

75%

>75% to

100%

>100%

UP

S

UP

A

UP

S

UP

A

UP

S

UP

A

UP

S

UP

A

UP

S

UP

A

UP

S

UP

A



ISSN No.:2349-3402

Vol. 1(2), 2014

81

MEG

A

(20)

BOOM

(9) 1 2 5 4 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0

RECESSIO

N (11) 2 4 8 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL (20) 3 6 13 10 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0

Source: Self computation

In comparison to the RL computations, the UPS and UPA measures give a far better picture of

the extent of underpricing of the IPOs. The above table presents the detailed picture of the

distribution of our forty sample companies for various range of return computed and documented

in the previous chapter. A closer look into the above table of computations based on UPS figures

clearly indicate that mega issue IPOs are mostly underpriced within the range of 0 percent to 25

percent comprising of 13 sample companies representing 65 percent of the relevant sample size.

The above picture of underpricing gets slightly affected when analysis is done based on UPA

computed figures. We notice that the overpricing of IPOs based on UPA figures throw a surprise

findings. We observe that the previous conclusion regarding overpricing of issue price got

completely overwritten and we find that 6 mega issue companies are overpriced

Now let us delve into the seasonal variation aspect of underpricing of the mega IPOs. Out of 20

Mega issues 9 companies are representing the Boom period and the remaining 11 representing

the recession period. 4 companies during recession period are overpriced based on UPA

computations in comparison to 2 companies based on UPS computations. For boom period the

similar data show 2 companies overpriced based on UPA in comparison to only 1 company

based on UPS computations. 5 companies out of 9 companies during boom period generated a

return within a range of 0 to 25 percent based on UPS computations whereas the similar result

for recession period stood at 8 companies out of 11 companies. On the basis of UPA

computations, the observed companies were 4 and 6 for the similar category. The 2 companies,

both in terms of UPS and UPA computations, which generated a return in excess of 50 percent

were issued during the boom period and none managed to generate similar return during the

recessionary period.

Hypothesis Testing:

Keeping in mind the objectives set forth earlier and the three null hypothesis framed H10, H20

and H30 we now have performed the Levenes F- test to establish whether the samples have equal variances. If the variances of the two samples do not differ significantly then we can

comfortably carry out the t-test and safely interpret the results so that logical conclusions can be

drawn.Table 6: Independent Samples Test for Mega Issues IPO issued during Boom and

Recession season.

Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differen

ce

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lowe

r Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower



ISSN No.:2349-3402

Vol. 1(2), 2014

82

Listing Return Equal

variances

assumed

3.087 .096 .281 18 .782 2.2133 7.8762 -14.3340 18.7608

Equal

variances not

assumed

.265 11.686 .796 2.2133 8.3524 -16.0394 20.4661

Simple

UnderPricing

Equal

variances

assumed

3.467 .079 1.546 18 .139 15.4065 9.9650 -5.5292 36.3423

Equal

variances not

assumed

1.452 11.295 .174 15.4065 10.6122 -7.8766 38.6897

Adjusted

UnderPricing

Equal

variances

assumed

5.543 .030 .806 18 .430 8.4874 10.5238 -13.6223 30.5971

Equal

variances not

assumed

.745 9.848 .474 8.4874 11.3999 -16.9666 33.9414

Source: SPSS Output

The above table depicts the result of the mega issue samples to assess the impact of issue season

on the raw listing return, simple underpricing and adjusted underpricing of the IPOs and

accordingly the hypothesis framed are H1a0, H2a0 and H3a0 respectively. The results of

Levenes F-test indicate whether to assume equal variances of the samples or not. We observe that for the listing return and simple underpricing we can assume that there is no significant

variation in the sample variances as the p values are 0.096 and 0.079 which are both greater than the cut-off value of 0.05. But for the adjusted underpricing the Levenes F-test have generated a p value of 0.03 so in this case we cannot assume that there is no significant variation in the sample variances. Depending upon the results of F-test, we now accordingly

consider the relevant p value for the t-test which is 0.782 for H1a0, 0.139 for H2a0 and 0.474 for H3a0. Based on these p values we can opine that the null hypotheses are not rejected and now we interpret briefly about these hypotheses.

Interpretation of Results of Hypothesis Testing:

For H10: The mean raw listing return (RL) for both the independent sample categories of boom

period and recession period of Mega issue IPOs shows no significant difference as the p value resulted from the t-test is 0.782 which is greater than the cut-off value of 0.05. So we do not

reject the null hypothesis.

For H20: The Levenes F-Test indicates that we can assume the equality of sample variances and as such the p value for the t-test is 0.139. So from the result of the test of equality of sample means we do not reject the null hypothesis that the simple underpricing (UPS) not varies

significantly statistically during boom or recession season of mega issue.

For H30: The Levenes F-test indicates that we cannot assume that the sample variances do not differ significantly and as such the relevant p value for the t-test is 0.474. Accordingly we do



ISSN No.:2349-3402

Vol. 1(2), 2014

83

not reject the null hypothesis that the mean adjusted underpricing (UPA) do not differ

significantly during the boom and recession season of mega issue IPOs.

Conclusion:

From the research work carried out with the twenty IPO issuing companies of mega sizes we

cannot conclude that boom period IPOs are more underpriced in comparison to recession period.

There was an apprehension that seasonality of the IPO market at the time of issue is an important

determinant in assessing whether IPOs are underpriced or not. But from this study carried out the

same cannot be concluded. Even the adjusted underpricing results show no significant impact

due to Boom or Recession season of IPO market. So again we cannot conclude that issuers of

mega IPOs is able to generate higher return on listing day for its investors during boom period

rather than recession period. It can be finally stated that mega IPOs as a whole are not severely

underpriced as not a single issuing company is found to be underpriced to the extent of 100

percent and above in comparison to the research findings of the previous decade of this study.

References:

1. Aggarwal, Deepak (2006), IPO Pricing Book Building and Efficient Pricing Methodology, www.ssrn.com/abstract=1311749.

2. Banerjee, Arindam (2006), Indian Capital Markets- Trends & Reforms, (ed.), The ICFAI University Press, Hyderabad.

3. Baral S. and Obaidullah Mohmmed (1998), Short-run Price Behaviour of IPOs in India, Some Empirical Findings, UTI Institute of Capital Markets.

4. Barel, Sushant Kumar (2000), An Empirical Investigation into Pricing of Initial Public Offerings in India (1999-2000), Ph.D. Unpublished Thesis, Berhampur University,

Orissa.

5. Basu, Indrajit (2005), Boom Time for Indias Primary Share Market, Asia Time Online, www.atime.com

6. Ghosh, Sourabh (2004), Boom and Slump Periods in the India IPO Market, RBI Occasional Papers, Vol. 25, No.1, 2 and 3, Summer, Monsoon and Winter.

7. Krishnamurti C. and Pradeep Kumar (2002), The Initial Listing Performance of Indian IPOs, Managerial Finance, Vol.28, pp. 39-51.

8. Madan, Arwah Arjun (2003), Investments in IPOs in the Indian Capital Market, Bimaquest, Vol.III, Issue 1, January, 2003.

9. Madan, Arwah Arjun (2003), Behaviour of IPOs in the Pre and Post Liberalisation Era in the Indian Capital Market, Indian Capital Market An Empirical Study (ed.), Anmol Publication, New Delhi.

10. Madhusoodan, T.P. and Thiripalraju M. (1997), Underpricing in IPOs: The Indian Evidence, Vikalpa, Vol.22, pp. 17-30.

11. Narasimhah, M.S. and Ramana, L.V. (1995), Pricing of Initial Public Offerings: Indian Experience with Equity Issues, The ICFAI Journal of Applied Finance, Vol.1, pp. 26-39.

12. Shah Ajay (1995), The Indian IPO Market: Empirical Facts, www.cmie.ernet.in. 13. Indian Securities Market: A Review, National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Vol. XI.,

2008, www.nseindia.com

14. Handbook of Statistics on the Indian Securities Market, SEBI, 2009, www.sebi.gov.in



ISSN No.:2349-3402

Vol. 1(2), 2014

84

Appendix 1: Issue Details of Sample companies

Companies Issue Size

(Rs.Cr.)

Offer Period Offer price

(Rs.)

Issue Price

(Rs.)

Date of

Listing

RELIANCE POWER

10,260 15-18 Jan

2008

405-450 450 11 Feb

2008

DLF

9,188 11-14 Jun

2007

500-550 525 5 July

2007

NHPC

6,038.55 7-12 Aug

2009

30-36 36 1 Sep 2009

NTPC

5,368 7-14 Oct

2004

52-62 62 5 Nov

2004

CAIRN INDIA 5,261 11-15 Dec

2006

160-190 160 9 Jan 2007

TCS

4,713 29 July- 5

Aug 2004

775-900 850 25 Aug

2004

DIVIS LAB

4,486.56 17 -21 Feb

2003

130 140 12 Mar

2003

ADANI POWER

3,016.52 28-31 July

2009

90-100 100 20 Aug

2009

POWER GRID

2,984 10-13 Sep

2007

44-52 52 5 Oct 2007

OIL INDIA

2,777.25 7-10 Sep

2009

950-1050 1050 30 Sep

2009

JSW ENERGY

2,698.21 7-9 Dec 2009 100-115 100 4 Jan 2010

IDEA CELLULAR

2,125 12-15 Feb

2007

65-75 75 9 Mar

2007

JET AIRWAYS

1,899 18-24 Feb

2005

950-1125 1100 14 Mar

2005

RURAL

ELECTRIFICATION

CORPORATION

1,639 19-22 Feb

2008

90-105 105 12 Mar

2008

IBULL POWER

1,529.1 12 -15 Oct

2009

40-45 45 30 Oct

2009

SUZLON ENERGY

1,496 23-29 Sep

2005

425-510 510 19 Oct

2005

Companies Issue Size Offer Period Offer price Issue Price Date of



ISSN No.:2349-3402

Vol. 1(2), 2014

85

(Rs.Cr.) (Rs.) (Rs.) Listing

HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT

AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

1,485 28 Jun-3 July

2007

430-500 500 24 July

2007

IDFC

1,372 15-22 July

2005

29-34 34 12 Aug

2005

LANCO

INFRATECH

1,067 6 -10 Nov

2006

200-240 240 27 Nov

2006

MARUTI UDYOG

830.798 12-19 Jun

2003

115 125 9 July

2003

paper 10zk

Documents